Condition reports include information on the status and trends of water quality, habitat, living
resources, and maritime heritage resources, and the human activities that affect them. They also
include information on the status and trends of ecosystem services.
To assess resources and ecosystem services, workshops with subject matter experts are convened by
ONMS staff to discuss a series of questions about each resource area and
relevant ecosystem
services. During these workshops, indicators for each topic are presented, accompanied by
datasets
that ONMS compiles prior to the meetings. Workshop attendees are asked to review the indicators
and datasets, identify data gaps or misrepresentations, and suggest any additional datasets that
may be relevant. Once all datasets are reviewed, experts then discuss the statements provided as
options for judgments about status (note that these statements have been customized for each
resource question). Once a particular statement is agreed upon, a color code and status rating
(good, good/fair, fair, fair/poor, poor) is assigned. Experts can also decide that the most
appropriate rating is “N/A” (i.e., the question does not apply), “Undetermined” (i.e., resource
status is undetermined due to a paucity of relevant information), or “Mixed” (i.e., resource
status across a number of indicators varies to the extent that the selection of a status rating is
not possible).
A subsequent discussion is then held about the trend. Conditions are determined to be improving,
remaining the same, or worsening. Trends are based on observed changes in status since the prior
condition report (trends are not predictive). Symbols used to indicate trends are the same for all
questions: “▲”—conditions appear to be improving; “▬”—conditions do not appear to be
changing;
“▼”—conditions appear to be worsening; “↕” —conditions appear to be mixed; “?”—trend is
undetermined; “N/A”—the question does not apply.
After assigning status and trend ratings, experts are also asked to assign a level of confidence
for each value by: (1) characterizing the sources of information they used to make judgments; and
(2) their agreement with the selected status and trend ratings. The evidence and agreement ratings
are then combined to determine the overall confidence rating.